Commonwealth v. Callen
Decision Date | 31 October 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 884 WDA 2017,No. 1591 WDA 2017,No. 1590 WDA 2017,No. 883 WDA 2017,883 WDA 2017,884 WDA 2017,1590 WDA 2017,1591 WDA 2017 |
Citation | 198 A.3d 1149 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Keith Richard CALLEN, Appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Keith Callen, Appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Keith Richard Callen, Appellant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Keith Callen, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Richard J. Cromer, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Michael W. Streily, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Appellant, Keith Callen, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on May 9, 2017, as made final by the denial of Appellant's post-sentence motion on June 1, 2017, and from the amended judgment of sentence, entered on September 27, 2012, which corrected a clerical error in the original sentence. We dismiss Appellant's appeals at docket numbers 1590 WDA 2017 and 1591 WDA 2017 as duplicative. We also vacate Appellant's judgment of sentence, reverse his convictions, and remand.
On October 4, 2016, the Commonwealth filed two separate informations against Appellant in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The first information, which was filed at Docket Number CP-02-CR-0009926-2016 (hereinafter "Case One"), accused Appellant of committing numerous sexual offenses against D.G. and K.G. when they were minors. The second information, filed at Docket Number CP-02-CR-0009929-2016 (hereinafter "Case Two"), accused Appellant of committing numerous sexual offenses against B.M. when B.M. was a minor. That day, the Commonwealth provided Appellant with notice that it intended to try the offenses at both informations together. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 582(B)(1) ; Commonwealth's Rule 582(B)(1) Notice, 10/4/16, at 1.
On October 31, 2016, Appellant filed pre-trial motions at both docket numbers and claimed, among other things: that the trial court must sever the cases at the two docket numbers and that, as to Case One, venue was improper in Allegheny County.1 Appellant's Pre-Trial Motion at Case Two, 10/31/16, at ¶¶ 30-38; Appellant's Pre-Trial Motion at Case One, 10/31/16, at ¶¶ 11-22 and 38-44. With respect to the severance issue, Appellant claimed that the trial court must sever the offenses charged at Case One from those at Case Two because the evidence at each docket number would not be admissible in a separate trial for the other and the offenses were not based on the same act or transaction. See Appellant's Pre-Trial Motion at Case One, 10/31/16, at ¶¶ 38-44.
As to the venue issue, Appellant claimed that, with respect to D.G. and K.G., all of the alleged criminal acts occurred in Butler County, Pennsylvania – not Allegheny County. Further, Appellant claimed, even though the Commonwealth accused him of sexually abusing B.M. in Allegheny County, the events with respect to D.G. and K.G. were an "entirely different criminal episode than that which [Appellant was accused of committing against B.M.] in Allegheny County." See id. at ¶¶ 11-22. Thus, in essence, Appellant claimed that, since all of the events as to D.G. and K.G. occurred in Butler County, the trial court was required to transfer Case One to Butler County. See id. ; see also Appellant's Brief at 47 and 42 n.16 ( ).
On January 3, 2017, the trial court heard oral argument on Appellant's pre-trial motions. See N.T. Oral Argument, 1/3/17, at 9-14. During this argument, the Commonwealth conceded that the criminal acts with respect to D.G. and K.G. occurred in Butler County. Id. at 11; see also Commonwealth's Brief at 23-24 ( ). However, the Commonwealth claimed that venue in Case One was proper in Allegheny County "because these sexual assaults have taken place over a length of time and this conduct is a course of conduct [and because] the district attorney's offices [of Allegheny County and Butler County] consulted with each other and it was determined that Allegheny County would prosecute as to all victims here." N.T. Oral Argument, 1/3/17, at 11-12. At the conclusion of argument, the trial court denied the motions. Id. at 14.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on February 27, 2017. The trial court thoroughly summarized the evidence presented during the trial:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Wenzel
... ... Commonwealth v. Callen , 198 A.3d 1149 (Pa.Super. 2018), is yet another example of when a trial court may act to correct a clerical error without affecting the validity of its original judgment of sentence. There the trial court confused the docket numbersbut not the offenses, counts, or victimswhen it orally pronounced ... ...
-
Pledger v. Janssen Pharm., Inc.
... ... Solomon." Janssen's Brief at 37. The law in this Commonwealth is well-settled that an expert witness may be cross-examined on the contents of a publication upon which he or she has relied in forming an opinion, ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Smith
... ... enforcement officer observed the alleged offense. See ... Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 679 A.2d 779, 781-82 (Pa ... Super. 1996). Because its reach is more specific, Rule 462(C) ... would prevail in a conflict over Rule 462(D). See ... Commonwealth v. Callen, 198 A.3d 1149, 1159 n.7 (Pa ... Super. 2018) (citing 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1933). Furthermore, ... Rule 462 is subject to the rule of lenity, codified at 1 ... Pa.C.S.A. § 1928(b)(a), which requires ambiguity in a ... penal statute to be interpreted in a light most favorable to ... the accused ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Johnson
... ... 1136, 1141 (Pa.Super. 2001) (holding trial of corrupt ... organizations trial in county where homicide allegedly ... occurred was proper because all the activities were connected ... to the drug dealing operation), with Commonwealth v ... Callen , 198 A.3d 1149, 1161 (Pa.Super. 2018) (holding ... the abuse of children in one county through association with ... their stepfather was not part of the same criminal episode as ... the abuse of another girl eight years later in a different ... county facilitated by the ... ...